{"id":175210,"date":"2011-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011"},"modified":"2016-08-24T14:15:13","modified_gmt":"2016-08-24T08:45:13","slug":"t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy … 1St on 29 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy … 1St on 29 October, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/10\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nS.A(MD)No.313 of 2011\nand\nM.P(MD)No.1 of 2011\n\n1.T.V.Viswanathan\n2.T.V.Sivanath\n3.T.V.Saradha\t\t... Appellants\/Appellants\/\n\t\t\t\tPlaintiffs\n\nVs.\n\n1.M.K.Nagasamy\t\t... 1st Respondent\/1st Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t1st Defendant\n\n2.Rukumaniammal\t\t...2nd Respondent\/2nd Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t2nd Defendant\n\nPrayer\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure\nagainst the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 made in A.S.No.129 of 2009 on\nthe file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Melur, confirming the judgment and\ndecree dated 30.04.2009 made in O.S.No.403 of 2004 on the file of the District\nMunsif Court, Melur.\t\n\n!For Appellants\t... Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar\n^For Respondents... Mr.M.N.Sankaran for R.1\n\t\t    No representation for R.2\n* * * * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis second appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs  animadverting upon the
\njudgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 made in A.S.No.129 of 2009 by the learned
\nPrincipal Subordinate Judge, Melur, confirming the judgment and decree dated
\n30.04.2009 made in O.S.No.403 of 2004 by the learned District Munsif, Melur.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder
\naccording to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Broadly, but briefly, narratively, but precisely,  avoiding discursive
\ndelineation of the case, the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the
\ndisposal of this second appeal would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs of  declaration that the
\nsuit property belonged to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 absolutely and for recovery of
\npossession of the suit property from the second defendant and for the past and
\nfuture mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The defendants 1 and 2 separately filed their respective written
\nstatements resisting the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Whereupon, the trial Court framed the issues and additional issues.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were
\nmarked on the side of the plaintiffs and D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and
\nExs.B.1 to B.29 were marked on the side of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the
\ntrial Court, the plaintiffs filed the appeal for nothing but to be dismissed by
\nthe first appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts
\nbelow, the second appeal has been focussed on various grounds by the plaintiffs
\nand they suggested the following substantial questions of law:
\n\t“1) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, whether the
\nPlaintiffs\/Appellants attestation in Ex.A.3=Ex.B.1 Sale Deed by itself would
\nimpute knowledge of the contents of the Sale Deed or not as per Section 115 of
\nIndian Evidence Act (1 of 1872).\n<\/p>\n
K.Velayudham Pillai & Others Vs. T.Velayutham pillai & others reported in (2009)
\n1 MLJ P-74. (TNLJ 1981 Page 22).\n<\/p>\n
\t2) Whether the Courts below has understood Article 65(b) of the Limitation
\nAct, which will apply in cases where the right of possession and interest itself
\ncommenced only on the death of the Hindu female and therefore in this case the
\nsuit filed is not barred by limitation? Jagat Ram Vs. Varinder Prakash (2006) 3
\nMLJ 141 Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t3) Whether the Courts below had complied the mandatory provisions in Order
\n14 Rule 2 and Order 20 Rule 5 C.P.C. so as to state its finding with reasons
\nupon each separate issue? K.V.Shetty Vs. Woodbrier Estates Limited, Nilgiris
\nDistrict & others (2008) 4 MLJ 926.\n<\/p>\n
\t4) Whether the Plaintiffs\/Appellants has to seek for a prayer to cancel
\nthe sale deed Ex.A3 when they are not parties to the Sale? Suhrid Singh Vs.
\nRandhir Singh & others 2010(2) MWN (Civil) 221. Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t5) Can the Lower Appellate Court infer on its own that there is no
\nevidence by the Plaintiffs to prove that the contents of Sale Deed Ex.A3 is not
\nknown to them?”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(extracted as such.)<\/p>\n
\t10. At this juncture, I would like to fumigate my mind with the following
\ndecisions of the Honourable Apex Court:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal<\/a> reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court
\nCases 545.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh and<\/a> another reported in 2008 (4) SCALE\n<\/p>\n
300.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) State Bank of India and others v. S.N.Goya<\/a> reported in 2009-1-L.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. A plain reading of those precedents would reveal and demonstrate that
\nunder Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Second Appeal cannot be
\nentertained, unless substantial question of law is involved. It is, therefore,
\njust and necessary to analyse as to whether any substantial question of law is
\ninvolved in this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Before delving deep into the matter, I felt after hearing both sides
\nthat the trial Court did not frame appropriate issues and adding fuel to the
\nfire and also fanning the flame, the first appellate Court throwing to winds the
\nmandates of law and more specifically, the punctilious of Court procedure
\nrelating to adjudication of first appeals, simply formulated two points for
\nconsideration as to (i) whether the appeal was to be allowed or not and (ii)
\nwhether the judgment and decree of the trial Court has to be confirmed or not.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In my considered opinion, the manner and method in which the Courts
\nbelow dealt with the matter was not satisfactory even by one’s wildest dreams.
\nTime and again, it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court that unless
\nappropriate issues are before the Court, certainly there is every likelihood of
\nthe Court getting itself mislead and sidetracked and the parties also would get
\nbamboozled and flummoxed, confused and discombobulated in adducing evidence.  It
\nis not a mere ornamental or pulchritudinous to say that there should be
\nappropriate issues, but it is a meaningful exercise which every Court should
\nresort to with due diligence and caution as otherwise it will lead to travesty
\nof justice.  Hence, I would like to formulate the following substantial
\nquestions of law:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Whether the trial Court formulated appropriate issues in accordance
\nwith law and dealt with the matter?\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Whether the first appellate Court formulated appropriate points for
\nconsideration in deciding the appeal?\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Whether the first appellate Court being the last Court of facts
\nfailed to adhere to the mandate of law in delving deep into all aspects of the
\ncase?\n<\/p>\n
\t14. All the above substantial questions of law are taken together for
\ndiscussion since they are inter-linked and interwoven, entwined and intertwined
\nwith one another.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The long and short of the admitted or at least undeniable germane
\nfacts absolutely necessary for the purpose of deciding this second appeal, would
\nrun thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tOne Kuppusamy, indisputably and indubitably, was the absolute owner of the
\nsuit property and other properties.  The third plaintiff and the first defendant
\nhappened to be the children of the said Kuppusamy and his wife Rajammal.  The
\nsaid Kuppusamy executed a registered Will dated 23.04.1975 bequeathing life
\nestate in favour of his wife – Rajammal and absolute estate in favour of his
\ndaughter – the third plaintiff in respect of the suit property measuring an
\nextent of 39 cents.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. During the life time of Rajammal, it so happened, a sale deed dated
\n04.11.1990 emerged, whereby the first defendant, even though was not the owner
\nof the suit property, executed the said sale deed along with his admitted other
\nproperties in favour of the second defendant; wherein the third plaintiff and
\nher son – the second plaintiff put their signatures as attesting witnesses in
\ntheir house itself. Before the Sub Registrar, one Premnath, the one other son of
\nthe third plaintiff signed as the identifying witness.  The second defendant was
\nnone but the cultivating tenant in the suit property. The mother of the third
\nplaintiff – Rajammal who was having life estate at the relevant time of
\nemergence of the sale deed, died in the year 1997.  Thereafter, the settlement
\ndeed – Ex.A.2 dated 27.03.1998 emerged in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 at
\nthe instance of the third plaintiff settling the suit property in favour of
\nthem.  Subsequently, there were exchanges of notices between the plaintiffs and
\nthe defendants touching upon the ownership over the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The plaintiffs would claim that they came to know about the alleged
\nfraudulent sale transaction as contained in Ex.A.3 – sale deed dated 04.11.1990,
\nwhereupon they filed the present suit during the year 1998.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. However, the first defendant would gainsay and contradict, repudiate
\nand refute the contentions of the plaintiffs by contending that the plaintiffs 2
\nand 3 having signed the sale deed as attesting witnesses, now unjustifiably and
\nillegally veer round and take a plea  by having a volte face quite antithetical
\nto what they committed in black and white and they also by their conduct was
\nestopped from contending otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. To the risk of repetition and pleonasm, but without being tautologous,
\nI would like to indicate and highlight that both the Courts below failed to
\ndecide the matter by having before them appropriate issues as well as proper
\npoints for consideration respectively.  They did not deal with the matter in a
\nsystematic way.  In my considered view, both the Courts below failed to take
\nnote of the crucial fact that Rajammal – the life estate holder as per the Will,
\neven though was very much alive at the time of emergence of Ex.B.1 – sale deed
\ndated 04.11.1990 was neither an executant nor an attesting witness relating to
\nEx.B.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The learned Counsel for the first defendant would vehemently argue
\nthat both the Courts below cogently and convincingly, appropriately and
\nappositely, relied on various precedents and held that even mere attestation of
\nthe sale deed by the real owner would be sufficient to constitute a valid sale
\ndeed.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. Whereas the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, in a bid to mince meat
\nand torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side
\nof the first defendant, would pilot his arguments by pointing out that mere
\nattestation of a sale deed by the real owner would not constitute a valid sale
\ndeed.  Trite, the proposition of law, is that the attestor is not expected to
\nknow the contents of the document.  Attestation means attesting the signature of
\nthe executant and not attesting the genuineness of the contents of the
\ndocuments.  I would like to refer to a few decisions fruitfully in this regard,
\nwhich are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma<\/a> reported in AIR 1959 Supreme
\nCourt 443.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) N.Kamalam (Dead) and another v. Ayyasamy and another reported in
\n(2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 503.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam<\/a> reported in (2003) 2
\nSupreme Court Cases 91.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Bhagat Ram and another v. Suresh and others reported in (2003) 12
\nSupreme Court Cases 35.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. Unarguably and unassailably, obviously and axiomatically, it is clear
\nthat both the Courts below did not take into consideration the fact that
\nRajammal was not added as a party to the sale deed and she was not even an
\nattesting witness to it.  As such, there should have been specific issue framed
\non this point as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whether Ex.B.1 – the sale deed dated 04.11.1990 executed by the first
\ndefendant during the life time of Rajammal – a life estate holder, could be held
\nto be valid even though the third plaintiff, the vested reminder and her son –
\nthe second plaintiff attested Ex.B.1?”\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Switching over to the other point, I would like to spotlight that
\nregarding sale consideration is concerned, the learned Counsel for the first
\ndefendant would stress upon the fact that the second defendant candidly and
\ncategorically in her deposition averred that a part of the sale consideration
\nwas paid by her under Ex.B.1 – the sale deed to the third plaintiff directly,
\neven a day anterior to the emergence of the sale deed; for which the learned
\nCounsel for the plaintiffs would clarify and expound that quite antithetical to
\nSection 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, her evidence cannot be countenanced and
\nupheld as correct.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. It is a thing to say that the second defendant paid the amount to the
\nfirst defendant, who in turn, paid the same to the third plaintiff, but, that is
\nnot the case of the second defendant.  Whereas the second defendant would state
\nas though it was the second defendant who actually paid the part of the sale
\nconsideration to the third plaintiff, but the recitals in the sale deed would
\nspeak otherwise to the effect that the entire sale consideration was paid by the
\nsecond defendant in favour of the first defendant.  This aspect ought to have
\nbeen considered by both the Courts below, but they failed to do so.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. The theory of estoppel was also ushered in by both the Courts below.
\nUnless there is a specific issue concerning estoppel based on pleadings, any
\ndecision rendered on that count, cannot be upheld to be a sound and valid one.
\nI would like to refer to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in
\nH.R.Basavaraj v. Canara Bank  reported in  (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 458
\nfor ready reference. Certain excerpts from it, would run thus:
\n\t“30. In general words, estoppel is a principle applicable when one person
\ninduces another or intentionally causes the other person to believe something to
\nbe true and to act upon such belief as to change his\/her position. In such a
\ncase, the former shall be estopped from going back on the word given. The
\nprinciple of estoppel is, however, only applicable in cases where the other
\nparty has changed his position relying upon the representation thereby made.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. As stated by Lord Denman, in Pickard v. Sears (1837) 6 Ad & El 469)
\nand discussed in B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy<\/a> (2003) 2 SCC 355, estoppel is
\nsaid to be based on the maxim, allegans contrarir non est audiendus (a party is
\nnot to be heard to allege the contrary) and is that species of presumption
\njuries et de jure (absolute or conclusive or irrebuttable presumption), where
\nthe fact presumed is taken to be true, not as against all the world, but against
\na particular party, and that only by reason of some act done; it is in truth a
\nkind of argumentum ad hominem.\n<\/p>\n
\tEstoppel is a complex legal notion, involving a combination of several
\nessential elements, namely, statement to be acted upon, acting on the faith of
\nit, resulting detriment to the actor. Estoppel is often described as a rule of
\nevidence, as indeed it may be so described. But the whole concept is more
\ncorrectly viewed as a substantive rule of law. Estoppel is different from
\ncontract both in its nature and consequences. But the relationship between the
\nparties must also be such that the imputed truth of the statement is a necessary
\nstep in the constitution of the cause of action. But the whole case of estoppel
\nfails if the statement is not sufficiently clear and unqualified.*\n<\/p>\n
\t32. In the present case, the Bank has granted the loan for proper
\nfunctioning of the Trust and on hypothecation of the properties of the Trust
\nitself. From the very beginning, all the transactions which had been entered
\ninto had clearly been for the sake of the running of the publications of
\nSamyukta Karnataka and other periodicals like Kasturi. In fact, first KPP and
\nthen JKNP, both private limited companies were formed for the sole purpose of
\nthe management of the running of the business of LST. These companies had been
\nformed because LST was running losses and was unable to properly manage its
\naffairs. Even the appointment of Receivers and the subsequent transactions
\nentered into by the Administrators appointed under the LST Act had been for the
\npurpose of furthering the business concerns of LST itself. It would be useful to
\nrefer in this connection to Depuru Veeraraghava Reddi v. Depuru Kamalamma (AIR<\/a>
\n1951 Mad 403) where Vishwanatha Sastri, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed:
\n(AIR p. 405, para 7)
\n\t“7. ? Estoppel though a branch of the law of evidence is also capable of
\nbeing viewed as a substantive rule of law insofar as it helps to create or
\ndefeat rights which would not exist or be taken away but for that doctrine?.”\n<\/p>\n
33. In S. Shanmugam Pillai v. K. Shanmugam Pillai<\/a> {(1973) 2 SCC 312 : AIR 1972
\nSC 2069} it was observed that there are three classes of estoppels that may
\narise for consideration; being: (SCC p. 320, para 16)
\n\t“(1) that which is embodied in Section 115 of the Evidence Act, (2)
\nelection in the strict sense of the term whereby the person electing takes a
\nbenefit under the transaction, and (3) ratification i.e. agreeing to abide by
\nthe transaction.”\n<\/p>\n
It might be said that the action of the Trust falls under the third category
\nwhereby it ratified all actions taken by others and benefiting from the same.
\nHence, the Trust being the sole beneficiary is not only liable for the repayment
\nbut is also estopped from denying its liability under the contract.”\n<\/p>\n
\t26. As such, I am of the considered view that the following issues based
\non the aforesaid facts, would emerge in this regard:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(i) Whether the defendants could plead anything contrary to the recitals
\nin the sale deed in view of the embargo as embodied in Section 92 of the Indian
\nEvidence Act and more specifically, relating to payment of sale consideration?\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Whether the principle of estoppel could be pressed into service by
\nthe defendants as against the plaintiffs on the ground that the second plaintiff
\nand the third plaintiff signed as attestors to the said sale deed – Ex.B.1?”\n<\/p>\n
\t27. There is also one other crucial point which I would like to highlight
\nhere.  A Will necessarily has to be proved strictly in accordance with Section
\n68 of the Indian Evidence Act. My mind is redolent and reminiscent of the
\ndecision in S.R.Srinivasa and others v. S.Padmavathamma<\/a> reported in (2010) 5
\nSupreme Court Cases 274.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs would unmindfully and casually
\nsubmit that inasmuch as in the pre-litigation notice as well as the written
\nstatement itself, the first defendant admitted the genuineness of the Will and
\nthe entitlement of the third plaintiff as absolute owner after the death of
\nRajammal, the life estate holder in respect of the suit property, there arose no
\nnecessity for the plaintiffs to prove the Will as per Section 68 of the Indian
\nEvidence Act.  According  to the plaintiffs, if any evidence is sought to be
\nadduced to prove the unchallenged and undisputed Will, it might amount to over
\negging the pudding.  Precisely and pithily, such a view of the plaintiffs is
\nenormously wrong in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. Both sides in the course of their arguments drew my attention to the
\nrelevant portion in the cross-examination of the first defendant, wherein there
\nwas a challenge to the said Will by the second defendant. As such, implied
\nadmissions et al would not in any manner be taken as proof of a Will.  Mere
\nmarking of a Will is different from proving it, I need not further elaborate on
\nit. As such, there was sheer misunderstanding of the procedural aspects involved
\nin putting forth the Will as evidence on the side of the plaintiffs; wherefore,
\nI hold that the Will was not proved strictly as per Section 68 of the Indian
\nEvidence Act.  I am of the view that one other issue also could be framed in
\nthis regard thusly:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whether the plaintiffs proved the Will executed by Kuppusamy in favour of
\nRajammal and the third plaintiff?”\n<\/p>\n
\t30. A fortiori, the Courts below failed to concentrate on these aspects
\nhighlighted supra.  On balance, the judgment of the first appellate Court has to
\nbe set aside, remitting the matter back to the trial Court would make the
\nparties to wait for getting justice endlessly. The substantial questions of law
\nare answered accordingly. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the first
\nappellate Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first
\nappellate Court which is the  last Court of facts, to decide the matter afresh
\nafter formulating the appropriate points for consideration on the aforesaid
\nadditional issues framed by me. Both sides shall be given due opportunity to let
\nin additional evidence on their side.  The first appellate Court shall deal with
\nthe matter strictly in accordance with law, untrammelled and uninfluenced by any
\nof the observations made by this Court on the merits of the case as
\nexpeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the
\ndate of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both the parties shall appear before
\nthe first appellate Court on 21.11.2011.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. For clarity sake, I would like to set out hereunder the additional
\nissues framed by this Court for being dealt with by the first appellate Court:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(i)Whether Ex.B.1 – the sale deed dated 04.11.1990 executed by the first
\ndefendant during the life time of Rajammal – the life estate holder, could be
\nheld to be valid even though the third plaintiff, the vested reminder and her
\nson – the second plaintiff attested Ex.B.1?\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)Whether the defendants could plead anything contrary to the recitals
\nin the sale deed in view of the embargo as embodied in Section 92 of the Indian
\nEvidence Act and more specifically, relating to payment of sale consideration?\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Whether the principle of estoppel could be pressed into service by
\nthe defendants as against the plaintiffs on the ground that the second plaintiff
\nand the third plaintiff signed as attestors to the said sale deed – Ex.B.1?\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Whether the plaintiffs proved the Will executed by Kuppusamy in
\nfavour of Rajammal and the third plaintiff?”\n<\/p>\n
\t32. In the result, the second appeal is allowed to the extent indicated
\nabove.  Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
rsb<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Melur.\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Munsif Court, Melur.\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy … 1St on 29 October, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/10\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A(MD)No.313 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.T.V.Viswanathan 2.T.V.Sivanath 3.T.V.Saradha … Appellants\/Appellants\/ Plaintiffs Vs. 1.M.K.Nagasamy … 1st Respondent\/1st Respondent\/ 1st Defendant 2.Rukumaniammal …2nd Respondent\/2nd Respondent\/ 2nd Defendant Prayer […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-175210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy ... 1St on 29 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy ... 1St on 29 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-24T08:45:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy … 1St on 29 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-24T08:45:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3473,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011\",\"name\":\"T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy ... 1St on 29 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-24T08:45:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy … 1St on 29 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy ... 1St on 29 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy ... 1St on 29 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-24T08:45:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy … 1St on 29 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-24T08:45:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011"},"wordCount":3473,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011","name":"T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy ... 1St on 29 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-24T08:45:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-v-viswanathan-vs-m-k-nagasamy-1st-on-29-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.V.Viswanathan vs M.K.Nagasamy … 1St on 29 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=175210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175210\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}